Methods Used to Evaluate Highway Improvements
Publication: Journal of Transportation Engineering
Volume 109, Issue 6
Abstract
This study provides information to state‐level planners for rational decision‐making regarding the enhancement of the analytical process for setting highway improvement priorities. Arizona's analytical procedure, a sufficiency rating scheme typically used by many states, is reviewed in light of the current problems facing decision‐makers. Four computerized alternative analytical techniques representing the state‐of‐the‐art are also reviewed. Sufficiency rating techniques are found to supply inadequate information regarding project benefits and the attainment of the improvement program objectives. Also, sufficiency ratings and utility functions are considered technically unsupportable because of their subjective base. Option‐evaluation techniques are found to supply valuable information regarding the user benefits generated by highway improvements. However, these techniques are limited in their scope of application and cannot incorporate all of the various project types or program goals into the improvement priority process. What is needed is a method which can evaluate the trade‐offs between various types of improvement projects on a comprehensive objective basis and evaluate improvement priorities against the multiple constraints and objectives which exist.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
References
1.
Bellomo, J. S., and Mehra, J. J., “Evaluating Options in Statewide Transportation Planning/Programming‐—Issues, Techniques and Their Relationships,” NCHRP Report 179, National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Washington, D.C., 1977.
2.
Bellomo, S. J., Mehra, J. J., Stowers, J. R., Cohen, H. S., Sinnott, J. H., Frank, C., and Greiser, J., “Evaluating Options in Statewide Transportation Planning/Programming—Techniques and Applications,” NCHRP Report 199, National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Washington, D.C., Mar., 1979.
3.
“Development of a Methodology for Planning Improvement Priorities,” Phases 1 and 2, Summary Report, Voorhees & Associates and Systems Science Development Corporation, Ministry of Transportation and Communication, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, Aug., 1972.
4.
Dunbar, F. C., “Relative Accuracy of User‐Benefit Measures,” Transportation Research Board Record 747, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 1980, pp. 34–40.
5.
“Guide to the Highway Economic Evaluation Model,” State Department of Highways and Public Transportation, State of Texas, Austin, Tex., Feb., 1976.
6.
“A Guide to the Sufficiency Rating System,” Arizona Department of Transportation, Transportation Planning Division, Priority Programming Section, Phoenix, Ariz., June, 1981.
7.
“Highway Priority Rating System,” Arizona Department of Transportation, Phoenix, Ariz.
8.
Juster, R. D., Batchelder, J. H., and Powers, D. L., “Highway Investment Analysis Package: Volume I—Executive Summary,” Report No. FHWA‐PL‐79‐013, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Office of Highway Planning, Washington, D.C., June, 1979.
9.
Juster, R. D., Batchelder, J. H., and Powers, D. L., “Highway Investment Analysis Package: Volume II—Technical Manual,” Report No. FHWA‐PL‐79‐014, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Office of Highway Planning, Washington, D.C., June, 1979.
10.
Juster, R. D., Batchelder, J. H., and Powers, D. L., “Highway Investment Analysis Package: Volume III—Computer User's Guide,” Report No. FHWA‐PL‐79‐015, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Office of Highway Planning, Washington, D.C., June, 1979.
11.
Juster, R. D., Batchelder, J. H., and Powers, D. L., “Highway Investment Analysis Package: Volume IV—Programmer's Guide,” Report No. FHWA‐PL‐79‐016, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Office of Highway Planning, Washington, D.C., June, 1979.
12.
Juster, R. D., and Pecknold, W. M., “Improving the Process of Programming Transportation Investments,” Transportation Research Board Record 599, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 1976, pp. 19–24.
13.
A Manual on User Benefit Analysis of Highway and Bus‐Transit Improvements—1977, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, D.C., 1978.
14.
Mohring, H., Transportation Economics, Balinger, Cambridge, England, 1977.
15.
National Highway Functional Classification and Needs Manual (1970–1990): Manual B of the National Transportation Planning Study, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Bureau of Public Roads, Washington, D.C., Feb., 1970.
16.
“Priority Programming and Project Selection,” Synthesis of Highway Practice 48, National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1978.
17.
Programmer's Supplement—Highway Economic Evaluation Model, McKinsey and Co., Inc., State Department of Highways and Public Transportation, State of Texas, Austin, Tex., June, 1976.
18.
Road User Benefit Calculation Package—Manual, Vol. 1, Ministry of Transportation and Communication, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, Oct., 1976.
19.
Road User Report Calculation Package—Manual, Vol. 2, Ministry of Transportation and Communication, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, Oct., 1976.
20.
Sinha, K. C., and Jukins, D. P., “Transportation Project Evaluation and Priority Programming: Techniques and Criteria—Annotated Bibliography,” Transportation Research Circular N213, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., Jan., 1980.
21.
“TRANS User's Manual,” Contract No. NCP‐146‐3, Ernst and Ernst, State Planning Division, Department of Administration, State of North Carolina, Raleigh, N.C., July, 1972.
22.
“A Transportation Resource Allocation System for North Carolina,” State Planning Report 146.11, Ernst and Ernst, North Carolina Department of Administration, State Planning Division, Raleigh, N.C., June, 1972.
23.
Walshe, J. T., “Priority Planning System Resume,” Ministry of Transportation and Communication, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, Dec., 1978.
24.
Willey, W. E., “Arizona's Experience with Sufficiency Ratings,” Highway Research Board Bulletin 53, Highway Research Board, Washington, D.C., 1952, pp. 3–6.
25.
Winfrey, R., “Consumer Surplus Does Not Apply to Highway Transportation Economy,” Transportation Research Board Record 550, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 1975, pp. 1–12.
26.
Winfrey, R., and Zellner, C., “Summary and Evaluation of Economic Consequences of Highway Improvements,” NCHRP Report 122, National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Washington, D.C., 1971.
27.
Witkowski, J. M., and Shropshire, D. R., An Assessment of Optimizing Highway Improvement Prioritization, Arizona Department of Transportation, Arizona Transportation Research Center, Final Report, Phoenix, Ariz., Aug., 1982.
28.
Zegeer, C. V., and Rizenbergs, R. L., “Priority Programming for Highway Reconstruction,” Transportation Research Board Record 698, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 1979, pp. 15–23.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Journal of Transportation Engineering
Volume 109 • Issue 6 • November 1983
Pages: 769 - 784
Copyright
Copyright © 1983 ASCE.
History
Published online: Nov 1, 1983
Published in print: Nov 1983
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Download citation
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.